Summary
holding that under section 25506, "the clock starts running on the statute of limitations" when the plaintiff has inquiry notice of the alleged misconduct
Summary of this case from Deveny v. Entropin Inc.Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-98-01514-HDM
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the court's order denying the preliminary injunction is
Appellee's motion to strike exhibits attached to appellants's reply brief is granted.